Hilary Clinton is what is next for them and that means no white house for another 8 years on top of this I would wager. I don't think any one sane will run against her.

Rubio won't be able to take her down, he has character issues regarding his family history which nuetralize any strength's he brings. Bachmann is crazy enough to run against her but has zero chance. Perry sunk his ship last time. Newt is too old. Santorum might run against her but I think he too is out of the mainstream. Jindal doesn't have a chance against the Clinton machine. Ryan has no chance of beating her, people despise him outside the GOP bubble. Jeb Bush has a chance but no solid indication he runs, I think he has the best chance.

I think the GOP is really hurting themselves with their outlook. The don't realize that you can't gerrymand the presidency ( the only reason they held the house). The country has changed. The demographics have changed. Some think that it was their candidate and running to the right will fix that. Go try that and tell me how it works. Romney pulled his closest when he was moderate.

I wonder how the Tea Party will fare in Congress without Jim DeMint. I think DeMint knows it's a done deal and bailed on them....

HIlary would seem like the most likely Dem candidate in 4 years but her age and stint as SOS might prompt her to forego that candidacy. If she's out, it's too early to figure the next Dem star on the horizon but if she IS out, bank on a Rubio/Christie fight for the Rep nomination. I'm no fan of Hilary (still strikes me as someone who thinks the office is owed to her) and would be very interested in a Christie candidacy in 2016 (depending on how the next 4 years play out)

Hilary Clinton is what is next for them and that means no white house for another 8 years on top of this I would wager. I don't think any one sane will run against her.

Rubio won't be able to take her down, he has character issues regarding his family history which nuetralize any strength's he brings. Bachmann is crazy enough to run against her but has zero chance. Perry sunk his ship last time. Newt is too old. Santorum might run against her but I think he too is out of the mainstream. Jindal doesn't have a chance against the Clinton machine. Ryan has no chance of beating her, people despise him outside the GOP bubble. Jeb Bush has a chance but no solid indication he runs, I think he has the best chance.

I think the GOP is really hurting themselves with their outlook. The don't realize that you can't gerrymand the presidency ( the only reason they held the house). The country has changed. The demographics have changed. Some think that it was their candidate and running to the right will fix that. Go try that and tell me how it works. Romney pulled his closest when he was moderate.

I wonder how the Tea Party will fare in Congress without Jim DeMint. I think DeMint knows it's a done deal and bailed on them....

HIlary would seem like the most likely Dem candidate in 4 years but her age and stint as SOS might prompt her to forego that candidacy. If she's out, it's too early to figure the next Dem star on the horizon but if she IS out, bank on a Rubio/Christie fight for the Rep nomination. I'm no fan of Hilary (still strikes me as someone who thinks the office is owed to her) and would be very interested in a Christie candidacy in 2016 (depending on how the next 4 years play out)

I don't think Christie is a viable primary candidate in 2016.

Additionally I think the left will McCain him if he actually were to win the primary. (McCain was the left's favorite, until he was the candidate, then he was savaged. Same deal with Romney, except he was the favorite early on, so the attacks started earlier.)

Anyone watch Meet the Press yesterday? Newt Gingrich basically said that if the Democrats run Hilary Clinton in 2016 the current make up of the Republican Party is incapable of winning. Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan's comments this week speaks volumes about where the RNC has to go to win in the future.

Hilary Clinton is what is next for them and that means no white house for another 8 years on top of this I would wager. I don't think any one sane will run against her.

Rubio won't be able to take her down, he has character issues regarding his family history which nuetralize any strength's he brings. Bachmann is crazy enough to run against her but has zero chance. Perry sunk his ship last time. Newt is too old. Santorum might run against her but I think he too is out of the mainstream. Jindal doesn't have a chance against the Clinton machine. Ryan has no chance of beating her, people despise him outside the GOP bubble. Jeb Bush has a chance but no solid indication he runs, I think he has the best chance.

I think the GOP is really hurting themselves with their outlook. The don't realize that you can't gerrymand the presidency ( the only reason they held the house). The country has changed. The demographics have changed. Some think that it was their candidate and running to the right will fix that. Go try that and tell me how it works. Romney pulled his closest when he was moderate.

I wonder how the Tea Party will fare in Congress without Jim DeMint. I think DeMint knows it's a done deal and bailed on them....

HIlary would seem like the most likely Dem candidate in 4 years but her age and stint as SOS might prompt her to forego that candidacy. If she's out, it's too early to figure the next Dem star on the horizon but if she IS out, bank on a Rubio/Christie fight for the Rep nomination. I'm no fan of Hilary (still strikes me as someone who thinks the office is owed to her) and would be very interested in a Christie candidacy in 2016 (depending on how the next 4 years play out)

I don't think Christie is a viable primary candidate in 2016.

Additionally I think the left will McCain him if he actually were to win the primary. (McCain was the left's favorite, until he was the candidate, then he was savaged. Same deal with Romney, except he was the favorite early on, so the attacks started earlier.)

McCain 'McCained' himself. The 'left' didn't need to do it, pandering to the conservative base is what killed McCain's credibility.

Very much the same thing happened with Romney. Pandering to the base created so many inconsistencies with previous (more moderate) positions he'd taken that he couldn't get back to middle.

Anyone watch Meet the Press yesterday? Newt Gingrich basically said that if the Democrats run Hilary Clinton in 2016 the current make up of the Republican Party is incapable of winning. Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan's comments this week speaks volumes about where the RNC has to go to win in the future.

Anyone watch Meet the Press yesterday? Newt Gingrich basically said that if the Democrats run Hilary Clinton in 2016 the current make up of the Republican Party is incapable of winning. Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan's comments this week speaks volumes about where the RNC has to go to win in the future.

I think its kinda weird to talk about 're-branding' a party to appeal to more voters. Its not Pepsi. Its not supposed to make money. Its supposed to be a fairly firm set of ideals and principals that you want your elected officials to have. The nation spoke and said they didn't want the republican candidate right now. If history is any precedent, they'll want the republican candidate sometime soon though.

And if they don't. If the minority (soon majority) vote and women and youth and religiously unaffiliated (the major 'swing' groups in this election) are going to dominate national policits for the foreseeable future, well let the republican party go then, and found a new one.

It just seems to me to be weird. "Oh, you won't vote for a party that doesn't publicly denounce a man who characterizes half of the country as entitled moochers? Well, we sure won't ever allow anyone to say something like that again!"

"Oh, you won't vote for a party that is steadfast in opposing gay marriage? Well hey, we can believe in gay marriage now! We got over it! Re-Branded!"

I know that this isn't the first time its happened, and won't be the last time, and I'm sure when the middle shifts again and democrats become alienated by core party beliefs, they'll shift too. But it just seems to dumb to me. We spent almost a year hammering home these ideals of what the parties do and don't believe, and now they're gonna 'Re-Brand' to be more appealing?

I think its kinda weird to talk about 're-branding' a party to appeal to more voters. Its not Pepsi. Its not supposed to make money. Its supposed to be a fairly firm set of ideals and principals that you want your elected officials to have. The nation spoke and said they didn't want the republican candidate right now. If history is any precedent, they'll want the republican candidate sometime soon though.

And if they don't. If the minority (soon majority) vote and women and youth and religiously unaffiliated (the major 'swing' groups in this election) are going to dominate national policits for the foreseeable future, well let the republican party go then, and found a new one.

It just seems to me to be weird. "Oh, you won't vote for a party that doesn't publicly denounce a man who characterizes half of the country as entitled moochers? Well, we sure won't ever allow anyone to say something like that again!"

"Oh, you won't vote for a party that is steadfast in opposing gay marriage? Well hey, we can believe in gay marriage now! We got over it! Re-Branded!"

I know that this isn't the first time its happened, and won't be the last time, and I'm sure when the middle shifts again and democrats become alienated by core party beliefs, they'll shift too. But it just seems to dumb to me. We spent almost a year hammering home these ideals of what the parties do and don't believe, and now they're gonna 'Re-Brand' to be more appealing?

Yuck.

Well, the question is, is the party being "rebranded" to appeal to more voters, or is the party just catching up to the evolving ideals of the members of their party?

The world, the country, the culture, are all evolving, and I think it is natural for the party to do that as well. The only thing is, a political party will usually evolve slower than the people and the culture, because they are a reactionary entity by nature.

I am speaking for myself only. I am a fiscal conservative/social liberal who has belonged, at one time or another, to both parties. I may be one of very few who like Hiliary (my gender "may" have something to do with that, I have felt for a while that she looks worn out and not well, and in desparate need of a rest to recharge.

The last election cycle I had problems with both parties.

As a Floridian for the past 15 years, I would support Jeb Bush if he ran. I thought he was an excellent governor and I said that on this blog a few years ago. His policies seem to me to be more conservative/middle of the road, and that is how I like it. Having a wife who is from Mexico might possibly help him with the Hispanic population. I thought Condoleeza Rice was an excellent Secretary of State, and would love for her to agree to be candidate for vice president...thus far she has not been interested in that.

I am afraid, however, that people may consider Jeb running to be establishing something of a "dynasty" and that may work against him.

I do think that it is way to early to speculate on possible candidates, even though I have now done it, too.

I think its kinda weird to talk about 're-branding' a party to appeal to more voters. Its not Pepsi. Its not supposed to make money. Its supposed to be a fairly firm set of ideals and principals that you want your elected officials to have. The nation spoke and said they didn't want the republican candidate right now. If history is any precedent, they'll want the republican candidate sometime soon though.

And if they don't. If the minority (soon majority) vote and women and youth and religiously unaffiliated (the major 'swing' groups in this election) are going to dominate national policits for the foreseeable future, well let the republican party go then, and found a new one.

It just seems to me to be weird. "Oh, you won't vote for a party that doesn't publicly denounce a man who characterizes half of the country as entitled moochers? Well, we sure won't ever allow anyone to say something like that again!"

"Oh, you won't vote for a party that is steadfast in opposing gay marriage? Well hey, we can believe in gay marriage now! We got over it! Re-Branded!"

I know that this isn't the first time its happened, and won't be the last time, and I'm sure when the middle shifts again and democrats become alienated by core party beliefs, they'll shift too. But it just seems to dumb to me. We spent almost a year hammering home these ideals of what the parties do and don't believe, and now they're gonna 'Re-Brand' to be more appealing?

Yuck.

It's just ridiculous, kind of like so many people referring to themselves as progressives because being a liberal became so unpopular with voters.

I think its kinda weird to talk about 're-branding' a party to appeal to more voters. Its not Pepsi. Its not supposed to make money. Its supposed to be a fairly firm set of ideals and principals that you want your elected officials to have. The nation spoke and said they didn't want the republican candidate right now. If history is any precedent, they'll want the republican candidate sometime soon though.

And if they don't. If the minority (soon majority) vote and women and youth and religiously unaffiliated (the major 'swing' groups in this election) are going to dominate national policits for the foreseeable future, well let the republican party go then, and found a new one.

It just seems to me to be weird. "Oh, you won't vote for a party that doesn't publicly denounce a man who characterizes half of the country as entitled moochers? Well, we sure won't ever allow anyone to say something like that again!"

"Oh, you won't vote for a party that is steadfast in opposing gay marriage? Well hey, we can believe in gay marriage now! We got over it! Re-Branded!"

I know that this isn't the first time its happened, and won't be the last time, and I'm sure when the middle shifts again and democrats become alienated by core party beliefs, they'll shift too. But it just seems to dumb to me. We spent almost a year hammering home these ideals of what the parties do and don't believe, and now they're gonna 'Re-Brand' to be more appealing?

Yuck.

It's just ridiculous, kind of like so many people referring to themselves as progressives because being a liberal became so unpopular with voters.

LOL. Which only happened after the progressive label became poison and so everyone started calling themselves liberals.

I think its kinda weird to talk about 're-branding' a party to appeal to more voters. Its not Pepsi. Its not supposed to make money. Its supposed to be a fairly firm set of ideals and principals that you want your elected officials to have. The nation spoke and said they didn't want the republican candidate right now. If history is any precedent, they'll want the republican candidate sometime soon though.

And if they don't. If the minority (soon majority) vote and women and youth and religiously unaffiliated (the major 'swing' groups in this election) are going to dominate national policits for the foreseeable future, well let the republican party go then, and found a new one.

It just seems to me to be weird. "Oh, you won't vote for a party that doesn't publicly denounce a man who characterizes half of the country as entitled moochers? Well, we sure won't ever allow anyone to say something like that again!"

"Oh, you won't vote for a party that is steadfast in opposing gay marriage? Well hey, we can believe in gay marriage now! We got over it! Re-Branded!"

I know that this isn't the first time its happened, and won't be the last time, and I'm sure when the middle shifts again and democrats become alienated by core party beliefs, they'll shift too. But it just seems to dumb to me. We spent almost a year hammering home these ideals of what the parties do and don't believe, and now they're gonna 'Re-Brand' to be more appealing?

Yuck.

It's just ridiculous, kind of like so many people referring to themselves as progressives because being a liberal became so unpopular with voters.

LOL. Which only happened after the progressive label became poison and so everyone started calling themselves liberals.

So you're saying in another 5-10 years I'll be able to wear my "LIBERAL ISN'T LIBEL" T-shirt again?

I think its kinda weird to talk about 're-branding' a party to appeal to more voters. Its not Pepsi. Its not supposed to make money. Its supposed to be a fairly firm set of ideals and principals that you want your elected officials to have. The nation spoke and said they didn't want the republican candidate right now. If history is any precedent, they'll want the republican candidate sometime soon though.

And if they don't. If the minority (soon majority) vote and women and youth and religiously unaffiliated (the major 'swing' groups in this election) are going to dominate national policits for the foreseeable future, well let the republican party go then, and found a new one.

It just seems to me to be weird. "Oh, you won't vote for a party that doesn't publicly denounce a man who characterizes half of the country as entitled moochers? Well, we sure won't ever allow anyone to say something like that again!"

"Oh, you won't vote for a party that is steadfast in opposing gay marriage? Well hey, we can believe in gay marriage now! We got over it! Re-Branded!"

I know that this isn't the first time its happened, and won't be the last time, and I'm sure when the middle shifts again and democrats become alienated by core party beliefs, they'll shift too. But it just seems to dumb to me. We spent almost a year hammering home these ideals of what the parties do and don't believe, and now they're gonna 'Re-Brand' to be more appealing?

Yuck.

It's just ridiculous, kind of like so many people referring to themselves as progressives because being a liberal became so unpopular with voters.

LOL. Which only happened after the progressive label became poison and so everyone started calling themselves liberals.

So you're saying in another 5-10 years I'll be able to wear my "LIBERAL ISN'T LIBEL" T-shirt again?

(I'm just kidding, if you don't think that's funny, you're right, it was the best I could think of off hand.)

They'll be calling themselves conservatives. "The vision of a progressive welfare state has been with us for over 100 years! We are conserving that vision and goal. Henceforth we'll be known as conservatives!"

I think its kinda weird to talk about 're-branding' a party to appeal to more voters. Its not Pepsi. Its not supposed to make money. Its supposed to be a fairly firm set of ideals and principals that you want your elected officials to have. The nation spoke and said they didn't want the republican candidate right now. If history is any precedent, they'll want the republican candidate sometime soon though.

And if they don't. If the minority (soon majority) vote and women and youth and religiously unaffiliated (the major 'swing' groups in this election) are going to dominate national policits for the foreseeable future, well let the republican party go then, and found a new one.

It just seems to me to be weird. "Oh, you won't vote for a party that doesn't publicly denounce a man who characterizes half of the country as entitled moochers? Well, we sure won't ever allow anyone to say something like that again!"

"Oh, you won't vote for a party that is steadfast in opposing gay marriage? Well hey, we can believe in gay marriage now! We got over it! Re-Branded!"

I know that this isn't the first time its happened, and won't be the last time, and I'm sure when the middle shifts again and democrats become alienated by core party beliefs, they'll shift too. But it just seems to dumb to me. We spent almost a year hammering home these ideals of what the parties do and don't believe, and now they're gonna 'Re-Brand' to be more appealing?

Yuck.

It's just ridiculous, kind of like so many people referring to themselves as progressives because being a liberal became so unpopular with voters.

LOL. Which only happened after the progressive label became poison and so everyone started calling themselves liberals.

So you're saying in another 5-10 years I'll be able to wear my "LIBERAL ISN'T LIBEL" T-shirt again?

(I'm just kidding, if you don't think that's funny, you're right, it was the best I could think of off hand.)

They'll be calling themselves conservatives. "The vision of a progressive welfare state has been with us for over 100 years! We are conserving that vision and goal. Henceforth we'll be known as conservatives!"

The GOP has a credibility problem. It’s great to talk about being Fiscally Conservative, but in the last 25 years the GOP track record is that of out of control spending on Middle Eastern conflicts. After the R primaries, I was convinced we’d be knee-deep in Iran during year one of a Republican administration.

And domestically, who doesn’t like the idea of Small Gov’t? It’s the calling card of the GOP. But, looking closer, you see the R’s advocating more bureaucracy around: women’s healthcare, gay civil rights, and Latinos in public without ‘papers’. So really the platform is Small Gov’t for some (ie: white men) while more scrutiny is needed for everyone else.

From the outside looking in, seems like the GOP is underestimating the effect free access to information has had on American gullibility.